Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In Warhammer 40k I'm forced to suspend my belief when, for example, a unit is 25'' away from my tactical squad and they are out of range of my bolters, but at 24'' they are magically in range. Why not instead of having a Ballistic Skill and various weapons range, you had a Ballistic Skill at various ranges for each type of weapon?
Something like the following:
A tactical squad's Ballistic Skill value with bolters could be a roll of 2 or more (2+) on a D6 within 12'', 4+ within 24'' and 6+ within 48''.
And, comparatively, a space marine with a bolt pistol could have BS values such as 2+ within 6'', 4+ within 12'', and 6+ within 24''.

To make it easier, you can clump weapons into categories such as: Range Level 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. So, if a Heavy Bolter, for example, is Range Level 3, then other weapons with Range Level 3 will act the same way in the same unit. If a Plasma Cannon is also Range Level 3, then my unit of standard space marines will have the same BS value for all Range Level 3 weapons at each range; both the Heavy Bolter and Plasma Cannon would have BS 4+ within 48'' for instance.

I think this would give the game a much more realistic feel as a unit wouldn't suddenly be out of range or in range, instead range would gradually affect the likelihood of successfully hitting a target as would be the case if you were to actually aim at targets from different ranges in real life.
It may seem like it's more to learn while they're trying to make the rules more palatable in this edition, but it's pretty comparable to the current system of learning a weapon's range and a unit's BS level. This just has 3 sensible levels (which double as the distance doubles) of BS levels for different ranges, which after playing a game or two, would be recalled with ease. I think it would add much more realism to the games.
Thoughts?

I've seen many games with range bands - (Point Blank), Short, Medium, Long, (Extreme).

It sounds very much what you are proposing would be Short ( up to half normal weapon range) = +2 to hit, Medium (normal weapon range) = no modifier and Long (up to double weapon range) = -2 to hit.

Much easier to apply to all armies, but I'd be concerned what this change would do to Tau. It would make Orks dangerous at close ranges, though. I'm not too keen on 2x range being maximum - with Bolters at 48" max range, shooting starts with things firing at each other from the deployment zones at the start of the game.

------

As a side note, in the version I'm working on, I halved all weapon ranges. This became Short range (up to 1/2 original range) = no modifier to hit; Long range (up to original range) = -1 modifier to hit; Extreme range (1 and 1/2 original range) = -2 modifier to hit. This gives a Marine bolter a max range of 36". It's still possible even with this change to set up so its possible to hit from deployment zones.

 Stormonu wrote:
I've seen many games with range bands - (Point Blank), Short, Medium, Long, (Extreme).

It sounds very much what you are proposing would be Short ( up to half normal weapon range) = +2 to hit, Medium (normal weapon range) = no modifier and Long (up to double weapon range) = -2 to hit.

Much easier to apply to all armies, but I'd be concerned what this change would do to Tau. It would make Orks dangerous at close ranges, though. I'm not too keen on 2x range being maximum - with Bolters at 48" max range, shooting starts with things firing at each other from the deployment zones at the start of the game.

------

As a side note, in the version I'm working on, I halved all weapon ranges. This became Short range (up to 1/2 original range) = no modifier to hit; Long range (up to original range) = -1 modifier to hit; Extreme range (1 and 1/2 original range) = -2 modifier to hit. This gives a Marine bolter a max range of 36". It's still possible even with this change to set up so its possible to hit from deployment zones.

Nice, I'd like to play with those modifiers.

Well, Orks would be essentially the same danger they are now at close ranges. If Orks weapon range is 12'' it's still normal BS at 12". If they are under 6'' then they'd receive a bonus, but at 6'' Orks are probably going to charge anyway. I'd rather have Orks try and shoot it out with my space marines if we're both receiving modifiers at close range, I'm almost guaranteed to hit and have rapid fire.
Also, it would be poor tactics to try stand there and shoot at 48'' range with low chances of hitting when facing rangey armies, the statistics are still in their favour. Overall I think strategies would remain the same, though it might hurt cc forces a bit. But, if this were realistically war, it's going to be tough to get into cc in a gunfight. An easy way to help the cc armies is just to make their units cheaper or shooting ones more expensive -or a bit of both.

I like your version, it's pretty similar to this one though. I guess if you didn't want to start the game shooting you could just try to use cover and move your forces back further. Even still. there's likely always going to be long range units that can start the game off shooting.

Don't you find it strange how they have rules for how damage alters the functionality of a dreadnought, but basically nothing for how ranges affects the ability to hit? I think the way you and I both set it up, it's still incredibly easy to learn. If you know your regular BS then you'll inherently know your modified BS's if it remains fairly constant throughout the game.

Yeah, there's always some wonkiness to rules - its always a question of at which point does it break your immersion in the game.

The main issue with the double extended ranges is that while you are essentially snap firing, there's no reason not to take the shot, since you can still advance and fire - it's free extra attacks, even if the chances are low - especially if you have better BS than your opponent and/or longer range. For armies like Tau, they're looking at 60" pulse rifle range (almost long corner to long corner on a 4' X 6' table) vs. Marine's maximum of 48" with bolters, and with two Marker lights, they are firing at their regular BS. Now imagine topping that off with the fire warriors maneuvering to keep as much distance from the marines as possible...

Back on Orks (or better yet, Tyranids) at like 6" range, I think your missing the fact that if they are carrying Assault weapons, they can fire before the charge (remember, the Orks could start at 12" away, move to 6", shoot at +2 BS then make their assault all in one turn). Suddenly that Ork (or Termagant) with BS 2 that has moved up to 6" now shoots at BS 4 moments before he charges into your squad.

I believe the flat to hit score in the current rules is one of its core issues.
However, I would suggest using a few simple and easy to remember to hit modifiers , like most other games do before getting carried away.

Here are the standard ones most games use.

Over half range.-1 to hit
Light cover -1 to hit
Heavy cover -2 to hit.
Small target -1 to hit.
Large target +1 to hit.

We could add equipment and ability modifiers.
EG sniper scope +1 to hit over half range.Camo cloak -1 to hit.

If you are thinking more of a detailed skirmish game with different AP values depending on range and ammo types , then I have ideas for that .But I am assuming you are referring to the standard 40k battle game...

 Stormonu wrote:
Yeah, there's always some wonkiness to rules - its always a question of at which point does it break your immersion in the game.

The main issue with the double extended ranges is that while you are essentially snap firing, there's no reason not to take the shot, since you can still advance and fire - it's free extra attacks, even if the chances are low - especially if you have better BS than your opponent and/or longer range. For armies like Tau, they're looking at 60" pulse rifle range (almost long corner to long corner on a 4' X 6' table) vs. Marine's maximum of 48" with bolters, and with two Marker lights, they are firing at their regular BS. Now imagine topping that off with the fire warriors maneuvering to keep as much distance from the marines as possible...

Back on Orks (or better yet, Tyranids) at like 6" range, I think your missing the fact that if they are carrying Assault weapons, they can fire before the charge (remember, the Orks could start at 12" away, move to 6", shoot at +2 BS then make their assault all in one turn). Suddenly that Ork (or Termagant) with BS 2 that has moved up to 6" now shoots at BS 4 moments before he charges into your squad.

Well, in the fire warriors case, it still wouldn't be difficult for the marines to get within 48'' range, and on top of that they'd have heavy weapons that could fire anywhere with line of sight, and Primaries marines with 30'' regular range, as well as snipers etc. So, there's units to cope with rangey armies. But armies that inherently have better BS and long range weaponry SHOULD have that advantage in a match, or else what's the point.
And for cc units, I think there should be a great reward for being able to get your Orks/Nids in close for a melee attack, especially under this ruleset where units can fire much further. So, it would strengthen cc type armies as well as gun-line armies, making it fairly balanced in the end, no?
Realistically in a gun fight you would be firing if you had a chance of hitting your opponent, so why not in the game too? The way the rules are now it's more like an 1812 battle where armies need to get into range and then shoot, wheres in this version it'd likely be units putting on suppressive fire from a distance while other units prepare to deep strike/rush, which is more realistic (and badass) imo.
I know it's a game, so it can't be perfect, but they do have Guns, so they should be able to shoot fairly far -not 24'' at a certain probability and then 0 chance at 25''. Even in AOS an archer could realistically shoot way further than 24''.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
I believe the flat to hit score in the current rules is one of its core issues.
However, I would suggest using a few simple and easy to remember to hit modifiers , like most other games do before getting carried away.

Here are the standard ones most games use.

Over half range.-1 to hit
Light cover -1 to hit
Heavy cover -2 to hit.
Small target -1 to hit.
Large target +1 to hit.

We could add equipment and ability modifiers.
EG sniper scope +1 to hit over half range.Camo cloak -1 to hit.

If you are thinking more of a detailed skirmish game with different AP values depending on range and ammo types , then I have ideas for that .But I am assuming you are referring to the standard 40k battle game...

Yeah, those are a good start, but why have the BS modifier on cover when there's already a cover save?

On this issue I've been using the following house-rules for a while:

Short Range: Assault weapons and Pistols have +1 to-Hit within half range.
Long Range: Shooting is at -1 to-Hit with any weapon over 12" or half of the weapon's range, whichever is further.
Large Targets: Large targets like vehicles, monstrous creatures etc. are always +1 to-Hit.

This combination makes pistols pretty vicious, since they're immune to the long range penalty (which IMO makes sense on pistols, as it's not like they're inaccurate weapons, especially over such short distances). The short range boost for assault weapons and pistols is aimed to reinforce the fact they're intended to work well against moving targets, and is a good boost for shotguns; though unfortunately there are some outliers it generally works well as a rule.

Large targets obviously just because range shouldn't matter much when you're shooting at a stonking great tank, and it should be even easier at close range.


Of course I wouldn't mind rolling cover back into the to-Hit roll, as it always made more sense to me than cover saves, but it seems 8th edition is intent on making cover saves an armour save bonus instead (unless I've misinterpreted, I've only skimmed 8th edition rules snippets so far).

@benlac.
Every game I have played using to hit modifiers, expressed cover as a to hit modifier.
If we are going to use to nit modifiers, I would prefer to drop cover save completely .And replace them with to hit modifiers.(As above. )

 Haravikk wrote:
On this issue I've been using the following house-rules for a while:

Short Range: Assault weapons and Pistols have +1 to-Hit within half range.
Long Range: Shooting is at -1 to-Hit with any weapon over 12" or half of the weapon's range, whichever is further.
Large Targets: Large targets like vehicles, monstrous creatures etc. are always +1 to-Hit.

This combination makes pistols pretty vicious, since they're immune to the long range penalty (which IMO makes sense on pistols, as it's not like they're inaccurate weapons, especially over such short distances). The short range boost for assault weapons and pistols is aimed to reinforce the fact they're intended to work well against moving targets, and is a good boost for shotguns; though unfortunately there are some outliers it generally works well as a rule.

Large targets obviously just because range shouldn't matter much when you're shooting at a stonking great tank, and it should be even easier at close range.


Of course I wouldn't mind rolling cover back into the to-Hit roll, as it always made more sense to me than cover saves, but it seems 8th edition is intent on making cover saves an armour save bonus instead (unless I've misinterpreted, I've only skimmed 8th edition rules snippets so far).

Yeah, they got rid of cover saves, and now it's just added to your armour save, which is decent, but still would make more sense as part of a hit modifier for sure. I like the to hit modifiers on huge vehicles that aren't flying, it makes sense. I've thought that when looking at the new rules for Thunder Hammers and Pwer Fists in the new edition. They have a -1 to hit for being unwieldy, but this should be stipulated further as not applying to anything over 10 wounds, or that has the vehicle keyword, or something, as it's silly to think they'd have a hard time hitting a land raider when they're standing beside it.

@benlac.
If large targets are +1 to hit.(Large land based units like Heavy vehicles and large M/C s.)
Then this would cancel out the -1 to hit with unweildly weapons like power fists.
This is simple and would work quite well IMO.

The whole point is with simple numbers and simple maths, you can replicate the in game results you need without having to resort to loads of poorly worded special rules that just confuse players.

Lanrak wrote:
@benlac.
Every game I have played using to hit modifiers, expressed cover as a to hit modifier.
If we are going to use to nit modifiers, I would prefer to drop cover save completely .And replace them with to hit modifiers.(As above. )

I've been playing a lot of Necromunda recently and like that cover is rolled up into to-Hit rolls, but then in Necromunda just being hit at all is a big deal.
The issue here I think is that if you're bolting rules onto 40k then I think it's better to focus on the range aspect, otherwise you're into "rewriting the cover rules completely" territory which is much more complex, and requires modifications to special rules and such as well.

 Stormonu wrote:


As a side note, in the version I'm working on, I halved all weapon ranges. This became Short range (up to 1/2 original range) = no modifier to hit; Long range (up to original range) = -1 modifier to hit; Extreme range (1 and 1/2 original range) = -2 modifier to hit. This gives a Marine bolter a max range of 36". It's still possible even with this change to set up so its possible to hit from deployment zones.

I like the idea of basic weapons being able to hit from 36" but the system itself is kind of feel bad for me. I want to try playing with short, base and long range where short range is 50% base range, and long range is 150% of base range. And weapons get +1 to hit at short range and -1 to hit at long range. There is still the fear that tau would become too good, but units would only ever get +1 to hit, so I don't know how broken that would really be able to get. But this way, you don't get bolter brothers shooting from the back edge of their deployment zones and Orks get a buff to shooting in the place they want to be anyways.